Objectivists/Subjectivists

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, Shadders said:

I do not think people are bashing MQA. They have exposed i

 

Shadders, I am afraid you did not get my message as I intended it. It is not about MQA. It most certainly is also not about me and MQA (it never was and never will), ... it is about you who a. rigorously investigate to b. next leave it at the theories. To me this feels as a waste because you apply only half of your capability.

I hope it is clear better with my other posts, by now. They debunk theories by means of theory but held against practice.

And now my green pens and Densen CD's work. Haha.

[esldude]

58 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Supposed you are like me (or my system) and you'd know that I can apply those same measurements *and* you'd see that there is nothing to differentiate in measurements WHILE with the flip of whatever I change the sound so drastically that that you would hear it with your ears closed (stuff-in fingers), then you'd see that with that as a base nothing can hold of the remainder of your text/findings.

Btw, perceiving differences with your ears closed is easier than doing to with ears open. Go to the hall (door of listening room closed) would imply the same. Try it.

 

 

I understand and I would agree. Still, I know (and many people know - more do than do not) that any sound of CD can be massively improved upon, be that with green pens or demagnetisers (OK, not your thang) or be that computer playback with 1000s (really) of variations and resulting different sound (for better or for worse). This tells me that there is no logic at all in anyone saying that LP will sound the same when played back from digital. I agree all right, but those telling it under these conditions I don't believe (and this is Kessler in this case - it is not about you). The logic:

- LP is LP and it does not vary with computers in the house or whatever USB cables etc.

- Digital varies with said means all over the place (too bad not for you, yet).

- Both now can not be compared really. All we could say is that the most lousy digital already can mimic LP playback (which may make Kessler be right after all).

Fables for the faithful. LP does not vary with USB cable... well how brilliant that is. It sure varies in lots of other ways. Again the massive improvement which of course shows nothing in the measurements.

[89reksal]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

An actual subject of objectivists versus subjectivists

I'm sorry you took my OP that way. I understand there was likely an element of humour intended as well but I wanted to respond. I realize my post ended up rambling off but my true intention was only to try and give some of the more objectivist readers some insight into how me as a subjectivist (but definitely not hard core) thinks (and reacts). I thought this might help some see how and why some of their responses in some threads may cause reactions they're seemingly surprised by. I believe CA has been slowly devolving into more of an us against them mentality which isn't good for anyone, at least anyone that wants CA to continue. I was hoping a clearer understanding of the thought process from at least one side of that might end up being helpful.

 

I can say for me, reading the responses from both "sides", that it's helped me understand quite a bit better where others are coming from with some of their posts. I actually find myself feeling much more tolerant.

 

I've read quite a few responses where I'm amazed at how something I posted was taken so differently from what I meant or intended. That alone has made think about how much more careful I/we should try and be with our reactions or responses to some posts.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Supposed you are like me (or my system) and you'd know that I can apply those same measurements *and* you'd see that there is nothing to differentiate in measurements WHILE with the flip of whatever I change the sound so drastically that that you would hear it with your ears closed (stuff-in fingers), then you'd see that with that as a base nothing can hold of the remainder of your text/findings.

Btw, perceiving differences with your ears closed is easier than doing to with ears open. Go to the hall (door of listening room closed) would imply the same. Try it.

 

 

I understand and I would agree. Still, I know (and many people know - more do than do not) that any sound of CD can be massively improved upon, be that with green pens or demagnetisers (OK, not your thang) or be that computer playback with 1000s (really) of variations and resulting different sound (for better or for worse). This tells me that there is no logic at all in anyone saying that LP will sound the same when played back from digital. I agree all right, but those telling it under these conditions I don't believe (and this is Kessler in this case - it is not about you). The logic:

- LP is LP and it does not vary with computers in the house or whatever USB cables etc.

- Digital varies with said means all over the place (too bad not for you, yet).

- Both now can not be compared really. All we could say is that the most lousy digital already can mimic LP playback (which may make Kessler be right after all).

Hi,

I was trying to convey that digital techniques can replicate an analogue sound. You would have to characterise the target system (as per Bob Carver experiment), but once this is done, then a digital process can then give you your favourite amplifier, or turntable/arm/cartridge using a well designed amplifier etc.

 

I would envisage that in the future, we can replicate the analogue sound using a DSP processor and plugins.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

I did not read it, heard often about it, but I dare state that the noise line is not straight - which is what I personally aim for, *or* that at least the noise is at another level compared to "any other" amp.

 

The logic:

Well, heavily based on my presumption that this noise won't look the same, it is my claim (not logic) that he won't be right because the amp *will* sound different than mine. If you have it, bring it, so we can compare.

 

I know, there is no logic in this. But the point I like to make is the same: I can do everything and all to change sound which is not measurable anywhere, and so his amp story won't hold for the same reason (because Carver will show you measurement - am I right ?).

Hi,

Bob Carver mimicked the specific harmonics of the target amplifier - so the second and third orders were the same. He proved to the stereophile reviewers that this was what distinguished amplifiers from each other. They could not determine the difference. It is not a perfect mimic - but so close that the reviewers who are trusted by subjectivists, could not tell the difference.

 

This does seem to be rather obvious - if an amplifier is a perfect wire with gain, then what makes it "sound" like it does ?. It has to be distortion.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[89reksal]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

but some times I must express the opposite of all the idiocy happening in here (which in the end is what this thread is about, right ?)

The "idiocy happening in here" truly is what I was trying to address. I just didn't realize it until reading this. And please, don't take that in a negative way. It's meant to be constructive (and applies to both subjectivists and objectivists).

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

The better context (as brought by me) would be that this would be correct. OK, I am not so sure this will count for CD as well (I just don't know any more and can't try either) but if we are allowed to translate this to "digital", then yes.

 

And here we have the perfect example of proof without measurement.

Hmm ... for you and for me. But not for the 1000s of vinyl die-hards. They just believe that vinyl sounds beter.

But you know what ? they never tried the test you refer to.

 

And there we are (the actual subject of this thread).

Hi,

The Ken Kessler statement is that if you digitally record vinyl, it sounds like vinyl. Essentially, the current digital recording is sufficient - and is perhaps too clean for most people. People like distortion - whatever type that is.

 

So i should have said digital exceeds the performance of analogue. People like vinyl really due to its deficiencies - not a bad thing, just human.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[89reksal]

20 minutes ago, esldude said:

LP does not vary with USB cable

But it sure does with phono or tone arm cable.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Shadders, I am afraid you did not get my message as I intended it. It is not about MQA. It most certainly is also not about me and MQA (it never was and never will), ... it is about you who a. rigorously investigate to b. next leave it at the theories. To me this feels as a waste because you apply only half of your capability.

I hope it is clear better with my other posts, by now. They debunk theories by means of theory but held against practice.

And now my green pens and Densen CD's work. Haha.

Hi,

For MQA - it does not offer anything positive. It does not try to replicate another sound (vinyl, tape, tube amplifier etc). It states to correct the recording - but we know that is a fallacy. If as reported by Brian Lucey, it adds harmonics (euphonics ??), then the "liked" sound is a con. Subjective or not - you are hearing something designed to please rather than restore a recording. A con.

 

Therefore, subjectivity is just that - do you like it ?. Does not mean MQA is the holy grail of audio - it is just another process like HDCD, or Q-Sound. A proprietary system designed to lock people into MQA so MQA can make lots of money.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

21 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I'm sorry you took my OP that way. I understand there was likely an element of humour intended as well but I wanted to respond. I realize my post ended up rambling off but my true intention was only to try and give some of the more objectivist readers some insight into how me as a subjectivist (but definitely not hard core) thinks (and reacts). I thought this might help some see how and why some of their responses in some threads may cause reactions they're seemingly surprised by. I believe CA has been slowly devolving into more of an us against them mentality which isn't good for anyone, at least anyone that wants CA to continue. I was hoping a clearer understanding of the thought process from at least one side of that might end up being helpful.

 

I can say for me, reading the responses from both "sides", that it's helped me understand quite a bit better where others are coming from with some of their posts. I actually find myself feeling much more tolerant.

 

I've read quite a few responses where I'm amazed at how something I posted was taken so differently from what I meant or intended. That alone has made think about how much more careful I/we should try and be with our reactions or responses to some posts.

Hi,

My initial response was to indicate that despite the controversial subject - it has progressed rather well, considering the other thread on the petition to remove another member.

 

I don't take it too seriously - if people believe in foo - then ok - but maybe the discussion of foo from a scientific perspective can let people question their expectations of what foo really is.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Fables for the faithful. LP does not vary with USB cable... well how brilliant that is. It sure varies in lots of other ways. Again the massive improvement which of course shows nothing in the measurements.

 

You must be having some reading comprehension, lately. Or a super bad mood which can't recover.

Try MQA for a month or two so you can cool down a little. 

[KeenObserver]

This is the classic" the emperor has no clothes" scenario.

 

The people that are selling the emperor his "clothes" are profiting immensely.  The materiel cost is, of course, nothing.  They just have to continue convincing the emperor that his clothes are beautiful. They utilize a website to discuss how beautiful the emperor's clothes are.  They discuss abstract and immeasurable points of the emperor's clothes.

 

On the other hand there are people saying the emperor has no clothes.

[Allan F]

10 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

This is the classic" the emperor has no clothes" scenario.

 

And others might suggest that the above is a "classic" case of a post that adds nothing of any substance to the discussion.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

When an "objectivist" asks for measurements, he means any measurements supporting the claim, such as in a Stereophile review. Nobody is demanding that everybody perform lab grade testing themselves. That's the great thing about measurements; they are equally valid no matter who made them. I suspect this is a difficult concept for the "subjective" crowd insisting on personal experience as a prerequisite for any kind of opinion. It's as though they fail to understand that a measured result is universally valid and not merely a product of personal experience.

 

Except the challenge being discussed was "Did you blind test?"

 

 @firedog also threw in that most folks can't do a lot of measurements for themselves, and @esldude helpfully responded that volume matching could be done with only a little bother.

 

But yes, folks often do respond to reports of measurements with some version of "Unless you've heard it yourself, it ain't valid." 

[KeenObserver]

None of us are completely objective or subjective.  I don't think there is anybody that buys any product without at some time looking at the specs.  And anybody that buys audio equipment listens to it.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

People like vinyl really due to its deficiencies

 

Not the only reason. In some cases masterings are different and better. Yes, you have to "listen through" vinyl distortions to hear them, and I understand many people might not be able to abide that.

 

There are also some things I'm fond of that may never have made it to digital format.

 

So there are many different reasons. Sometimes it's easier to be dismissive than to inquire a little further.

[mansr]

25 minutes ago, Jud said:

Except the challenge being discussed was "Did you blind test?"

That's a perfectly valid question. It is within anyone's abilities to do a single blind test. I'm not saying everybody must do this, but if they did, their report will carry more weight. It's that simple.

 

25 minutes ago, Jud said:

@firedog also threw in that most folks can't do a lot of measurements for themselves,

Right, which is why referring to measurements made by someone else is perfectly fine.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

People like vinyl really due to its deficiencies

[jabbr]

19 hours ago, lasker98 said:

Not sure where that's coming from but right back at ya ?

 

The term "Objectivist" is meaningless to me except as a label that the crew who calls themselves "Subjectivist" uses to call the people who aren't in their club.

 

I understand the term "Subjectivist" better perhaps but wouldn't want to assume to label what another calls themselves. Is Subjectivist a person who considers themselves non-technical and who cares only about the SQ of what they hear? @Teresa describes herself that way. Fair enough, I know many people who are very very intelligent but not technical. Regarding computers (this is "Computer" Audiophile after all), the Mac and iPhone have achieved great adoption not because they are the most technically advanced or have the best "specs", but because of ease of use. Turn it on and it just works. There is fantastic value in that.

 

Writers that I know who love the Mac, use the Mac because it allows them to write with the least intrusion. It gets the job done.

 

Is that Subjectivism?

 

Subjectivists seem to categorize Objectivists as only caring about measurements. Is that what an Objectivist is? I don't know any here. I do know folks who are very practical and who come at this from an engineering perspective. Yet all the advances in Computer Audio have arisen from engineering. In any case if you are a self described "Subjectivist" and self described "non-technical", then why would you be attracted to "oxygen free copper", or try to claim that the crystalline structure of a cable affects its directionality? Why would someone be attracted to such technical marketing? 

 

What I am saying is that I don't even know what a reasonable definition of the term "Objectivist" is, so please supply a real world one. Also why would a true "Subjectivist" engage in a technical argument or care?

 

Perhaps the real distinction here is between folks who use measurements to make decisions and those who don't? I include cost as a measurement though   I'll tell you though that my most recent major purchase was made without consideration of any measurements, so does that make me a Subjectivist?

[pkane2001]

57 minutes ago, Jud said:

Except the challenge being discussed was "Did you blind test?"

 

I know it may sound like a challenge, but to me it’s just a question: if the reviewer did only sighted testing, I’ll discount most of the findings. Nothing wrong with sighted testing when doing it for yourself, but the reliability of such reports to others is pretty much impossible to judge.

[89reksal]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

What I am saying is that I don't even know what a reasonable definition of the term "Objectivist" is, so please supply a real world one

I don't know about a real world one but from the OP this is how I see it:

 

"Broadly speaking, for me, a subjectivist leans more to being interested in other's listening impressions, and personal experiences with whatever is being discussed. Objectivists lean more towards being interested in actual measurements and a scientific explanation of what's behind these subjectivist reports. Within each group there's various degrees of overlap."

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

I don't know about a real world one but from the OP this is how I see it:

 

"Broadly speaking, for me, a subjectivist leans more to being interested in other's listening impressions, and personal experiences with whatever is being discussed. Objectivists lean more towards being interested in actual measurements and a scientific explanation of what's behind these subjectivist reports. Within each group there's various degrees of overlap."

 

Those are 4 different things:

1) other people listening impressions

2) personal experiences

3) actual measurements

4) scientific explanation

 

Why do you assume that 1 and 2 necessarily go together as well as 3 and 4 to the exclusion of 1 and 2? My last major purchase was based on (1) as well as getting a good price on an unavailable product -- does that make me a Subjectivist?

[Abtr]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

Not the only reason. In some cases masterings are different and better. Yes, you have to "listen through" vinyl distortions to hear them, and I understand many people might not be able to abide that.

 

There are also some things I'm fond of that may never have made it to digital format.

 

So there are many different reasons. Sometimes it's easier to be dismissive than to inquire a little further.

Often the vinyl version of an album (also of current new releases) has a higher dynamic range than the CD version. Whether or not you like this higher DR is of course subjective.   @Bryan Lucey (ME) loved DR compression, yet, the vinyl versions of some of the albums he mastered have a significantly higher DR than the CD versions. But that was another discussion.. 

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Why do you assume that 1 and 2 necessarily go together as well as 3 and 4 to the exclusion of 1 and 2? 

 

9 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Within each group there's various degrees of overlap.

 

[Richard Dale]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

The term "Objectivist" is meaningless to me except as a label that the crew who calls themselves "Subjectivist" uses to call the people who aren't in their club.

 

I understand the term "Subjectivist" better perhaps but wouldn't want to assume to label what another calls themselves. Is Subjectivist a person who considers themselves non-technical and who cares only about the SQ of what they hear? @Teresa describes herself that way. Fair enough, I know many people who are very very intelligent but not technical. Regarding computers (this is "Computer" Audiophile after all), the Mac and iPhone have achieved great adoption not because they are the most technically advanced or have the best "specs", but because of ease of use. Turn it on and it just works. There is fantastic value in that.

 

Writers that I know who love the Mac, use the Mac because it allows them to write with the least intrusion. It gets the job done.

 

Is that Subjectivism?

 

Subjectivists seem to categorize Objectivists as only caring about measurements. Is that what an Objectivist is? I don't know any here. I do know folks who are very practical and who come at this from an engineering perspective. Yet all the advances in Computer Audio have arisen from engineering. In any case if you are a self described "Subjectivist" and self described "non-technical", then why would you be attracted to "oxygen free copper", or try to claim that the crystalline structure of a cable affects its directionality? Why would someone be attracted to such technical marketing? 

 

What I am saying is that I don't even know what a reasonable definition of the term "Objectivist" is, so please supply a real world one. Also why would a true "Subjectivist" engage in a technical argument or care?

I don't want to be called a 'subjectivist' because I think it is a silly term to use. You can hardly judge hifi without listening to music played on a hifi system, anymore than you can become a food expert without eating exotic dishes. I would rather be categorised as a 'mainstream hifi enthusiast or audiophile' who reads hifi magazines and websites, goes to hifi shows, and discusses the sound of gear they hear with fellow enthusiasts.

 

I think the term 'objectivist' does have a specific meaning. It is a the style of internet discussion invented by Arny Krueger, where terms such as 'placebo effect', 'expectation bias', 'abx tests' can be deployed in discussions to take down the opinions of mainstream hifi enthusiasts when they are discussing the sound of hifi cables or whatever. The beauty of this arguing style is that it doesn't require you to be an expert listener yourself even if you are attacking the views of an expert listener.